DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/02/2026 has been entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings as submitted on 09/29/2023 have been accepted.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application. Claims 2, 9, and 16 have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claims 1, 7, 8, 14, and 15 have been amended. Claims 1, 4-9, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected herein. The rejection of the pending claims is hereby made non-final.
Response to Remarks
101
Regarding the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 101, the examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments and finds them to be persuasive. The rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 101 is hereby withdrawn.
102
Regarding the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 102 in view of the previously applied prior art of record, the examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments and has addressed them in the new grounds of rejection presented below.
Double patenting
Regarding the rejection of the pending claims in view Double Patenting, the examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments and finds them not to be persuasive. The rejection of the pending claims in view of Double Patenting is hereby maintained.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 4-9, 10-15, and 17-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of co-pending Application No. 18/243600. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications are directed to systems and methods of inventory management and routing of inventory based on age information associated with said items.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goossens et al (US 2023/0260378) in view of Bolen et al (US 2008/0168267).
Regarding claim 1, the prior art discloses a method, performed at a computer system comprising a processor and a computer-readable medium, comprising: receiving an image of an area of a physical warehouse, the image captured by a user device operated by a picker fulfilling a first order (see at least paragraph [0038] to Goossens et al); applying a machine-learning model to the image to generate a set of items that are depicted in the image of the area of the physical warehouse (see at least paragraph [0038] to Goossens et al); updating information about a location of the at least one of the set of items in the physical warehouse based on the generated set of items in the image of the area of the physical warehouse and a location of the mobile user device operated by the picker when the image was captured (see at least paragraph [0046] to Goossens et al); selecting a second order including the at least one of the set of items associated with updated location information, the second order associated with a second user device operated by a second picker, wherein a user interface presented at the second user device includes a first route through the physical warehouse (see at least paragraph [0077] to Goossens et al); and modifying a user interface for a second order based on the updated information about the items, wherein the modifying comprises causing the user interface to display a second route through the physical warehouse, the second route determined based on the updated information ([0040] to Goossens et al).
Goossens et al does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the location of the mobile user device is determined using sensors of the mobile user device; and determin[ing] using the sensors on the mobile user device.
However, Bolen et al disclose a system and method for dynamically configuring a mobile device, wherein the location of the mobile user device is determined using sensors of the mobile user device (see at least paragraph [0005] to Bolen et al); and determin[ing] and modifying a display of the mobile device based on using the sensor data on the mobile user device (see at least paragraphs [0023]-[0026] to Bolen et al).
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the system and methods of the aforementioned applied prior art references, in order to provide data to a user based on user location and job function (see at least paragraph [0026] to Bolen et al, could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a proximity score for the at least one of the at least one of the set of items relative to one or more items in the second order relative to the determined information about the location of the set of items; and generating a ranking of at least one of the set of items for presentation to a user based on the proximity score; wherein modifying the user interface includes presenting the ranking based on the proximity score (see at least paragraph [0040] to Goossens et al).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the updated information about the location of the set of items is an alternate location of the items (see at least paragraph [0025] to Goossens et al).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that an item is available for inclusion in the second order, wherein the determining is based on determining a set of items that are depicted in the image of the area of the physical warehouse (see at least paragraph [0025] to Goossens et al).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: assigning a task for a picker of the second order to determine supplemental item information about one or more other items at the location in the warehouse; wherein modifying the user interface comprises displaying the task to the picker of the second order while the picker is in the physical warehouse (see at least paragraph [0038] to Goossens et al, wherein The instructions may include various types of tasks for the autonomous vehicle 106 and/or the picker 112 to perform).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the machine-learning model is trained by, repeatedly: inputting a training image to the machine-learning model, wherein the machine- learning model outputs a probability that a specific item is depicted in the training image; comparing the probability to a label that indicates whether the specific item is actually depicted in the training image; and updating the machine-learning model based on the comparing (see at least paragraph [0082] to Goossens et al, wherein object recognition may be performed to recognize a product and determine whether the product matches to an expected product image. As discussed herein, the processor (230 in FIG. 2B) may support object recognition capabilities and/or be capable of executing the image processing operations for the media data received from the camera 280. Additionally, or alternatively, the orchestrator server (122 in FIG. 1) may receive media data (raw data, compressed data) from the 280 and perform object recognition and exception detection for the products entering the containers 228. The image processing operations may confirm whether the picker 224 correctly picked the product that the picker 224 placed into the container 228).
Claims 8, 10-15, and 17-20 each contain recitations substantially similar to those addressed above and, therefore, are likewise rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner has considered all references listed on the Notice of References Cited, PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALIA F CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 8:30 AM-4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fahd A Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TALIA F CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights